Balwant Singh @ Premi vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 1957 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwant Singh @ Premi vs State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233




                                                            2024:PHHC:012233


CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M)                                                      ::1::
(232)



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                     CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M)
                     Date of decision: 30.01.2024

Balwant Singh @ Premi

                                                              ......        Petitioner
           V/s
State of Punjab

                                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab

             *****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.124 dated

07.07.2022 under Section 22 Act No.61 NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29, Act

No.61 NDPS Act, 985 added later on) registered at Police Station Vairoke,

Distt. Fazilka.

2. The brief fact of the case are that on 07.07.2022, when the

police party headed by ASI Hardev Singh was present in the area of Canal

Bridge, Ratta Khera, a person came there riding on a motorcycle from the

side of village Chak Khadunj @ Kaniya. He was signalled to stop. On

seeing the policy party, he became perplexed and tried to turn back. He was

apprehended on suspicion and disclosed his name as Balwant Singh @

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233

2024:PHHC:012233

CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M) ::2::

Premi (petitioner) son of Dasunda Singh. Strips of intoxicant tablets were

clearly visible in the side pocket of shirt of Balwant Singh @ Premi.

Initially, FIR No.124 dated 07.07.2022 under Sections 22 & 29 of the NDPS

Act at Police Station Vairo Ke, District Fazilka, came to be registered

against Balwant Singh @ Premi. Meanwhile, senior police officials were

called to the spot and the search of Balwant Singh @ Premi was conducted

as per the provisions of the NDPS Act. He was found to be in possession of

09 strips of intoxicant tablets containing 10 tablets each totalling 90

intoxicant tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets 100 mgs.

Balwant Singh suffered his disclosure statement whereby he

disclosed that he alongwith Surjeet Kaur (since granted bail vide order dated

29.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-5232-2023) were indulging in the business of

selling the intoxicant tablets. On the basis of the said statement, Surjeet

Kaur was also nominated as an accused in the present case. Thereafter, the

police raided the house of Surjeet Kaur and she was interrogated. Based on

the disclosure statements of Balwant Singh @ Premi and Surjeet Kaur, they

got recovered 1000 tablets of Tramadol 100 mg. which were taken into

police possession. Thereafter, both the accused were arrested as per law and

vide rapat 039 dated 07.07.2022, the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS

Act was also added.

During the course of custodial interrogation, both the accused

disclosed that they had purchased the said intoxicant tablets from Gurjeet

Singh @ Mona, who was nominated as an accused vide DDR No. 15 dated

10.07.2022.

                                 2 of 7

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233




                                                           2024:PHHC:012233


CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M)                                                     ::3::

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory

provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied

with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the

time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since

07.07.2022 and none of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined so

far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon

and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising

out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022,

decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of

West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final

judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022,

decided on 04.05.2023, moreso, when a co-accused, namely, Surjeet Kaur,

has been granted the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that

commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner.

Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes

that the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 07.07.2022, that

none of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and a

co-accused has been granted the similar concession.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                               3 of 7

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233




                                                           2024:PHHC:012233


CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M)                                                     ::4::

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on

01.08.2022 held as under:-

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233

2024:PHHC:012233

CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M) ::5::

"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233

2024:PHHC:012233

CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M) ::6::

of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

(emphasis supplied)

8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) and

Hasanujjaman & others (supra)', the accused therein had been granted the

concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone

approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since

07.07.2022 and none of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so

far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him.

In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to

an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution

of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the

petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail, moreso, when a co-

accused/Surjeet Kaur has been granted the similar relief.

10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Balwant Singh @ Premi is ordered to

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233

2024:PHHC:012233

CRM-M-54830-2023 (O & M) ::7::

be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned

on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform

in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the

present case.

12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall

prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the

Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of

the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

January 30, 2024                                   ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet                                                 JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned          : Yes/No
                Whether reportable                 : Yes/No




                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012233

                                 7 of 7